A Bad Time to Build?

With game consoles setting the standard for game development these days, do you think it would be unwise to build a PC specifically for gaming before the successors to both the PS3 and Xbox 360 hit the shelves? I have an ASUS GS73 gaming laptop - which I use for just about everything - and an older PC I built a few (well, more than a few at this point) years ago with a Q6600 and an 8800GT. Unfortunately, my laptop has gone belly-up and I've since then been going back and forth with the "geniuses" at Geek Squad.

As you might have guessed, I've started to play around with the idea of building a new PC. I don't like to waste money, so going from past experience, it just seems like a waste to invest in something like an ATI 7970 or even one of the yet-to-be released "600" series nVidia cards at this point. Sure, I'd be able to play game like BF 3 at incredibly high frame rates, but I think you all know as well as I do, that this doesn't translate into comparable performance with games to be released with the upcoming generation of console's specifications in mind.

What do you guys think? I really want a triple (or more) Eyefinity setup, but knowing with a reasonable degree of certainty that my future consoles would provide a better gaming experience (my Q6600 with the 8800GT was solid in its day, but it doesn't play many of the recent console ports as well as... well, my 360 does) in the near future, I just see it as a hasty decision.

[Start Geek Squad Rant]

Not to digress too much, but nothing irks me more than having to explain to these morons that the failing components on the motherboard, not the hard drive - which they have obsessed over, are the culprit behind its malfunctions. As I had kindly explained to them, while I do not troubleshoot hardware/software issues for a living, I do have some experience in this area. I know what it's like to deal with know-it-alls, but after explaining and demonstrating the problems repeatedly, out of desperation, I shared with them that not only am I a 4th-year full-time professor of Computer Information Systems and Security, a CISSP, CISA and Security+ (not to mention an intellectual property law student), and that I've fixed my fair share of PCs as well.

I don't like having to assert my education, skills or knowledge on the topic when the warranty I purchased (which is a contract by definition) was procured for the sole reason of avoiding hassles and confrontations about the matter. In a way, it feels... "ugly," to put it mildly to have to make such assertions, but sometimes I feel like these guys hold their job over your traditional laymen's head when it comes to enforcing a warranty.

To keep things short, the damn thing was a lemon and began to overheat, causing the machine to freeze and become unresponsive after a few minutes (just long enough to reach a certain temp, as I had explained it to the tech). These guys sent it to wherever the Hell they do for repairs, and concluded that all they needed to do was replace the hard drive to get it to function correctly. LOL, what they failed to do, however, is let it run long enough to freeze up! Yeah, I tested the drive before handing it over to them, and as you might guess, there was NOTHING wrong with it. This is the first time it has been sent, so when it comes back next week, I can't wait to have it lock-up, as it did before they "fixed" it, before the General Manager's eyes.

When you buy a high-performance laptop, you don't want it to be fixed through your warranty - you want it to be replaced, so that the performance you paid for isn't compromised by applying band-aids to the problems. The simple fix, which I know they're capable of doing, would be to just give me the newer model (GS47), which is actually a little cheaper than what I paid for the GS73!

Sorry... I'm just really pissed about this inconvenience. I don't have the luxury of waiting around for my laptop to be fixed when I have work and school riding on it.

[/End Geed Squad Rant]

Personally I think there are very few reasons left to build a gaming pc nowadays, no mods, too much drm and too many bad console ports have killed the heart and soul of the PC which was the freedom to do as you please and have vastly superior graphics (Far Cry, Doom, Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2 back in the day)

Plus the advent of new consoles in a year might make it more obsolete.

Anyway if you have been away from the PC gaming since say 2005/2006 and you expect to relive the glory of PC don't bother that Beast has been killed:cry: by developers and publisher that have become greedy

Personally I think there are very few reasons left to build a gaming pc nowadays, no mods, too much drm and too many bad console ports have killed the heart and soul of the PC which was the freedom to do as you please and have vastly superior graphics (Far Cry, Doom, Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2 back in the day)

Plus the advent of new consoles in a year might make it more obsolete.

Anyway if you have been away from the PC gaming since say 2005/2006 and you expect to relive the glory of PC don't bother that Beast has been killed:cry: by developers and publisher that have become greedy

OldSoldier123

Sadly, I agree. I almost feel like if you want to play the next-gen games better than the upcoming consoles, you're probably better off waiting a few years before building. Moreover, the cost of entry (I don't care what anyone says), is considerable, so while gaming is a priority, it shouldn't be the only utility gained these days.

With that said, however, I still like being able to play games on my PC when I'm not working, studying, or doing whatever else with it. Beyond the incentive to potentially perform better than my consoles, I also enjoy, but miss the modding scene. Back in the day, games like Modern Warfar and Battlefield would give PC gamers a real reason to invest in their machines, just for the modding capabilities alone. Hell, I've spend countless hours with the Source SDK myself!

There are plenty of reasons to build. If for nothing else to at least have a powerful new computer. I don't see the problem here.

There are plenty of reasons to build. If for nothing else to at least have a powerful new computer. I don't see the problem here.

Masenkoe

Yes, but the reasons have to be weighed against the risks, which is the general point of this discussion.

(my Q6600 with the 8800GT was solid in its day, but it doesn't play many of the recent console ports as well as... well, my 360 does)

Ernesto_basic

Wat?

You got to be kidding. People need to understand that running a game at (pathetic) console-level settings =/= maxing out a game. Your Q6600 with 8800GT will run any console port (bar maybe a really messed up one, before patches are provided) much better than current-gen consoles.

If you build a top-notch PC today, it will probably be more powerful than next-gen consoles, except if Sony decide to try the "let's launch our console at 600 bucks again and lose most of our market share again! Yay"

The REAL reason not to build your PC right now, is because Nvidia is about to release its Kepler graphic cards, which will lead to a new price war in top-tier GC.

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]

(my Q6600 with the 8800GT was solid in its day, but it doesn't play many of the recent console ports as well as... well, my 360 does)

milannoir

Wat?

You got to be kidding. People need to understand that running a game at (pathetic) console-level settings =/= maxing out a game. Your Q6600 with 8800GT will run any console port (bar maybe a really messed up one, before patches are provided) much better than current-gen consoles.

If you build a top-notch PC today, it will probably be more powerful than next-gen consoles, except if Sony decide to try the "let's launch our console at 600 bucks again and lose most of our market share again! Yay"

The REAL reason not to build your PC right now, is because Nvidia is about to release its Kepler graphic cards, which will lead to a new price war in top-tier GC.

Notice: Look at the i7 CPU and 8GB of RAM and tell me that the 8800GT/6600 combo is going to give you the performance that you'd want as a PC gamer.

There are more games, developed today, that are poorly ported to the PC, than vice versa. With this in mind, it's best to wait until hardware is powerful enough to overcome sloppy ports.

True PC gaming is dead. BF3 is a joke you need a monster to max and even then it certainly won't look a generation ahead of consoles meanwhile no mods are allowed and you have to be constantly online with origin to do anything even play single player. When I installed that damn game the first thing I had to do was make a origin account which kept beign buggy and infuriating me the when I finally installed the game it went ahead and forced me to install a 4GB patch which was the back to karkand expansion which I could even play even though its sitting there on my hdd occupying space and the download took 6 hours :evil:

I remember the days when maps such as those were released for free and tons of maps like that were free as mods nowadays not only do they charge you money for it but they force you to download it even if you dont want it.

Serisously the gaming industry has become greedy this way every since the start of DLC and Steam. Developers could have ever more control over their game and sell you ever more smaller pieces of content at increased prices and they became greedy tyrants.

True PC gaming is dead. BF3 is a joke you need a monster to max and even then it certainly won't look a generation ahead of consoles meanwhile no mods are allowed and you have to be constantly online with origin to do anything even play single player. When I installed that damn game the first thing I had to do was make a origin account which kept beign buggy and infuriating me the when I finally installed the game it went ahead and forced me to install a 4GB patch which was the back to karkand expansion which I could even play even though its sitting there on my hdd occupying space and the download took 6 hours :evil:

I remember the days when maps such as those were released for free and tons of maps like that were free as mods nowadays not only do they charge you money for it but they force you to download it even if you dont want it.

Serisously the gaming industry has become greedy this way every since the start of DLC and Steam. Developers could have ever more control over their game and sell you ever more smaller pieces of content at increased prices and they became greedy tyrants.

OldSoldier123

There is some truth spoken here ! ...But I do not believe PC gaming is dead, just that it's become secondary with developers in more instances that I like to see.

*+

[QUOTE="milannoir"]

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]

(my Q6600 with the 8800GT was solid in its day, but it doesn't play many of the recent console ports as well as... well, my 360 does)

Ernesto_basic

Wat?

You got to be kidding. People need to understand that running a game at (pathetic) console-level settings =/= maxing out a game. Your Q6600 with 8800GT will run any console port (bar maybe a really messed up one, before patches are provided) much better than current-gen consoles.

If you build a top-notch PC today, it will probably be more powerful than next-gen consoles, except if Sony decide to try the "let's launch our console at 600 bucks again and lose most of our market share again! Yay"

The REAL reason not to build your PC right now, is because Nvidia is about to release its Kepler graphic cards, which will lead to a new price war in top-tier GC.

Notice: Look at the i7 CPU and 8GB of RAM and tell me that the 8800GT/6600 combo is going to give you the performance that you'd want as a PC gamer.

There are more games, developed today, that are poorly ported to the PC, than vice versa. With this in mind, it's best to wait until hardware is powerful enough to overcome sloppy ports.

A console does not run BF3 at high settings at 1080P.

There is no "bad time" to build a gaming PC from my experience, and I've been in this for about 14 years. You just have to figure out what you're willing to spend, and get the best parts for your needs within your budget. It's that simple.

As far as your Q6600/8800gt not running newer games as well as an XBOX360, that's just not true in a real apples to apples comparison. Run BF3 at 720p at medium detail settings on your PC, and then compare it to the X360. A lot of games (even console exclusives) run like crap on X360 and PS3. They stutter and chug because those systems can't even run the games over a constant 30fps at mediocre detail settings and resolution. The GPU in your PC is roughly twice as powerful as those in the current-gen consoles. One example of a game that looks and runs better on a PC like yours is Mass Effect 3 (1 and 2 also). I've seen it run on a 2.8ghz Athlon II X2 with a 9600gt at 1280x1024, looking AND running better than the X360 version.

There is no "bad time" to build a gaming PC from my experience, and I've been in this for about 14 years. You just have to figure out what you're willing to spend, and get the best parts for your needs within your budget. It's that simple.

As far as your Q6600/8800gt not running newer games as well as an XBOX360, that's just not true in a real apples to apples comparison. Run BF3 at 720p at medium detail settings on your PC, and then compare it to the X360. A lot of games (even console exclusives) run like crap on X360 and PS3. They stutter and chug because those systems can't even run the games over a constant 30fps at mediocre detail settings and resolution. The GPU in your PC is roughly twice as powerful as those in the current-gen consoles. One example of a game that looks and runs better on a PC like yours is Mass Effect 3 (1 and 2 also). I've seen it run on a 2.8ghz Athlon II X2 with a 9600gt at 1280x1024, looking AND running better than the X360 version.

hartsickdiscipl

Actually, using your logic, this IS a bad time to build, considering my needs.

While I'm anxious to build a new PC for work and play, being able to play games - which will be developed with next generation consoles in mind first - at a much higher fidelity than what could be expected of those consoles, is foreseeably unlikely with current PC hardware. With that in mind, it is my opinion, that it would behoove me or or anyone in my circumstances, to accept the high risk of current hardware offerings being incapable of performing materially and significantly better than a much cheaper console.

As much as it pains me to wait, I think I'll have to until at least a year into the next cycle of consoles, in order to achieve the gap in performance that I desire. Otherwise, I'm spending a significant amount of money to either perform comparably or marginally better/worse than next generation consoles in the next 3 years.

Surely, as any PC gamer could appreciate, the primary reason (particularly since the modding community has been largely marginalized in the last several years) one would only want to spend so much money on a PC geared towards gaming, if he can enjoy a significant and noticeable advantage over next generation consoles. The later I build my gaming PC into the next generation of console gaming (keeping in mind that console developers largely control and drive the PC gaming market now), the less risk I expose myself to.

In a way, the "consolization" of PC gaming is a double-edged sword; while it's almost certain that most, if not all major releases, will be tailored to the technical limitations of gaming consoles, the savy and patient PC builder can build a PC that may not perform as well as the "best" PC hardware at the end of that console cycle, but he will certainly enjoy a significant performance boost above the console baseline.

Many people in this thread are assuming that Sony and MS will release another powerhouse console on the bleeding edge of technology (for consoles) like the 360 and PS3 were back in the day. I am not convinced that they won't just release a slightly updated console to maintain profit margins considering how well the Wii did with absolutely archaic hardware on launch day.General_X

You may be right, but then again, that would go against the consistent trend of the past. It is arguably less likely that both MS and Sony would release a device that doesn't push the boundaries of console hardware, considering the fact that EVERY... EVERY generation of consoles preceding it has followed that trend. Moreover, even if the jump was less significant that the last 6 or so prior generations, the console market will still invariably dictate PC game development.

Further, current speculation both in and outside of developer circles indicate that hardware specifications, are going to much greater than that of the current Xbox 360. Sure, it's pure conjecture at this point, but again, using the past a crystal ball, there's usually some credibility in these pre-launch rumblings.

You're really overthinking this TC. Just figure out what you can spend and build a damn computer. I don't know how else to put it.

You're really overthinking this TC. Just figure out what you can spend and build a damn computer. I don't know how else to put it.

hartsickdiscipl

I imagine he could get away with just a video card upgrade, some extra memory, and perhaps a modest processor overclock. Those Q6600's can still handle modern games quite well with a reasonable frequency boost, which is surprising considering how old they are.

You're really overthinking this TC. Just figure out what you can spend and build a damn computer. I don't know how else to put it.

hartsickdiscipl

I think the question posed is an interesting one that I'm sure others have thought about. I'm not "overthinking" it - I'm just putting the conversation out there.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You're really overthinking this TC. Just figure out what you can spend and build a damn computer. I don't know how else to put it.

GS550L

I imagine he could get away with just a video card upgrade, some extra memory, and perhaps a modest processor overclock. Those Q6600's can still handle modern games quite well with a reasonable frequency boost, which is surprising considering how old they are.

Not a bad idea either.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You're really overthinking this TC. Just figure out what you can spend and build a damn computer. I don't know how else to put it.

Ernesto_basic

I think the question posed is an interesting one that I'm sure others have thought about. I'm not "overthinking" it - I'm just putting the conversation out there.

It's a conversation that has been had thousands of times over, and the answer ultimately ends up being that you buy when you have the money and the inclination. People have been trying to analyze things this way for years.. it always ends up the same way. That's why I'm being a bit short.

Intel are releasing their new 22nm (pci 3.0 compatible) cpus next month, so I think that would be a good time to buy a computer when those come out.

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You're really overthinking this TC. Just figure out what you can spend and build a damn computer. I don't know how else to put it.

hartsickdiscipl

I think the question posed is an interesting one that I'm sure others have thought about. I'm not "overthinking" it - I'm just putting the conversation out there.

It's a conversation that has been had thousands of times over, and the answer ultimately ends up being that you buy when you have the money and the inclination. People have been trying to analyze things this way for years.. it always ends up the same way. That's why I'm being a bit short.

but everyone keep saying PCI-E 3.0 will have no advantage over 2.0 unless it TWO card that a 100% stronger then GTX 680 ie : Nvidia 2014 Kepler sucessor GPU : it Seem if PCI-E 3.0 as advatange atm it might be for those who get 3x / 4X GPU but aside of trhat it seem PCI-e 2.0 is not even close of satured and that at SLI/CF at 8x 2.0

but TC over analyse stuff he should just wait ivy bridge and build a Rig if he as some game pc like BF3 he want to play or skyrim with lot of mods + ENB + SSAO if i ad a gpu 40% stronger then GTX 570 overclocked at 860mhz perhaps id be able to handle the SSAO so far i rather better shadow & AA then SSAO that isn't full it was a Light SSAP and yet it still laggen around 40fPS with a i5 2500K at 4.5Ghz but alway 60FPS without SSAO

There bunch of game i max like saint row 3 but not with SSAO overide for some reason.. mass effec 3 with 4X AA / 4X SSAA so if TC get something like GTX 680 or a pair of GTX 560 TI if they still 169.99$ AFTER MIR he could really max all game till 2013 who know what ahead of that year

I'm sorry to say this but you sound like the biggest nerd right now, you're just over thinking this too much.

Oh noez "What if the world ends tomorrow ?!?, What if the cows don't come home?!?" :o

You worry about things you shouldn't even be worrying about... if you want a gaming PC then buy one, don't worry about the consoles because they will always be inferior compared to a desktop.

No one said you had to go "all out" to enjoy PC gaming, just find a budget you're happy with and work with that.

Anyways i hope it works out for you dude

Exactly I don't need SSAO Extreme / 8X SSAA / 2560x1600 or 3x 1920x1080 to 24 inchs (Eye finity) to enjoy all the gaming wonder :P for me just something to max setting graphically is long it still affordable im used to spend about 1.4K every 3 year for upgrade setup to enjoy all the high graphic a game can give :P

But I know plenty of people who are happy with gaming pc that offer superiorty of console for just 400$USD you get better graphic then console : you get acess to fanmod community if there some and you can add AA later on if you get more graphic power

so it not a really bad time to upgrade just wait kepler & ivy bridge for best powr per $$ as it might drop price of AMD card HD6950 /78xx / 79xx / NVidia GTX 5xx series and then you can sli / crossfire those if you really need those 8x SSAA & SSAO in game like skyrim at 1920x1080

With all due respect, I think you guys are missing the point :/

That you want a laptop replace ? dream as much you can i think it ony M18X series that get hardware upgrade after 1-2 Year a kind of free of charge but you pay lot but most of those laptop have a modularity design so you can purchase new cpu for the same sock given the mobo support it or those Very Expensive HD6950M or GTX 680M at like 479.99$USD and fit them inside and then get driver update

unless ur willing to upgrade the gpu by purchase one on ebay.com you are wasting money by buy gaming laptop : Because there not fully modular like those Am3+ motherboard setup or LGA 1155 Setup where you can decide to upgrade from sandy to ivy and put as much video card in sli / crossfire that ur mobo support up to 4X if E-ATX / XL-ATX (LGA 2011)

Upgrading hardware every 2-3 year is common within pc if you wish to maximze the setting but you could last 5 Year given all you change is the video card from like a 100$ GTX 460 to a 200$ GPU later on or sli that very gpu and get similar result as one that cost 200$ today or even more performances

With all due respect, I think you guys are missing the point :/

Ernesto_basic

Likewise. But don't take advice from me.. I've only been doing this for 14 years.

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]

With all due respect, I think you guys are missing the point :/

hartsickdiscipl

Likewise. But don't take advice from me.. I've only been doing this for 14 years.

No, not likewise - you, along with almost everyone who's replied, has missed the idea behind the question posed. Having repaired or built PCs has nothing to do with the underlying concepts of "consolization," a shifting developer paradigm and the strategy PC gamers must adopt.

So you've been building PCs for 14 years... great, I've been a full-time college professor of both information systems and information security for 4. Further, I have many other credentials, law school among others, that neither have anything to do with this topic nor bolster any of my points :/

[QUOTE="milannoir"]

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]

(my Q6600 with the 8800GT was solid in its day, but it doesn't play many of the recent console ports as well as... well, my 360 does)

Ernesto_basic

Wat?

You got to be kidding. People need to understand that running a game at (pathetic) console-level settings =/= maxing out a game. Your Q6600 with 8800GT will run any console port (bar maybe a really messed up one, before patches are provided) much better than current-gen consoles.

If you build a top-notch PC today, it will probably be more powerful than next-gen consoles, except if Sony decide to try the "let's launch our console at 600 bucks again and lose most of our market share again! Yay"

The REAL reason not to build your PC right now, is because Nvidia is about to release its Kepler graphic cards, which will lead to a new price war in top-tier GC.

Notice: Look at the i7 CPU and 8GB of RAM and tell me that the 8800GT/6600 combo is going to give you the performance that you'd want as a PC gamer.

There are more games, developed today, that are poorly ported to the PC, than vice versa. With this in mind, it's best to wait until hardware is powerful enough to overcome sloppy ports.

Did you even remotely understand what I wrote? Read again, then look at your chart. Here's a hint regarding what's wrong with your chart : "1920x1080 High Quality DirectX 11"

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]

With all due respect, I think you guys are missing the point :/

Ernesto_basic

Likewise. But don't take advice from me.. I've only been doing this for 14 years.

No, not likewise - you, along with almost everyone who's replied, has missed the idea behind the question posed. Having repaired or built PCs has nothing to do with the underlying concepts of "consolization," a shifting developer paradigm and the strategy PC gamers must adopt.

So you've been building PCs for 14 years... great, I've been a full-time college professor of both information systems and information security for 4. Further, I have many other credentials, law school among others, that neither have anything to do with this topic nor bolster any of my points :/

You're wrong. Having PC Hardware and gaming as major interests for 14 years has given me a broad view of the whole landscape and how it relates to what we're discussing. What I (and many others here) have learned is that it doesn't matter when you build. You can choose to accept that or not. That applies to any era of PC gaming, including the "consolized" present. It's still your choice as to when you want to spend your money. I can go back to 2005-06 when the current generation of consoles was coming out. Nothing has really changed, except for the fact that we PC gamers are really starting to get screwed by paying the same prices for cross-platform titles that consoles gamers do, despite the lack of licensing fees on PC.

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]

[QUOTE="milannoir"]

Wat?

You got to be kidding. People need to understand that running a game at (pathetic) console-level settings =/= maxing out a game. Your Q6600 with 8800GT will run any console port (bar maybe a really messed up one, before patches are provided) much better than current-gen consoles.

If you build a top-notch PC today, it will probably be more powerful than next-gen consoles, except if Sony decide to try the "let's launch our console at 600 bucks again and lose most of our market share again! Yay"

The REAL reason not to build your PC right now, is because Nvidia is about to release its Kepler graphic cards, which will lead to a new price war in top-tier GC.

milannoir

Notice: Look at the i7 CPU and 8GB of RAM and tell me that the 8800GT/6600 combo is going to give you the performance that you'd want as a PC gamer.

There are more games, developed today, that are poorly ported to the PC, than vice versa. With this in mind, it's best to wait until hardware is powerful enough to overcome sloppy ports.

Did you even remotely understand what I wrote? Read again, then look at your chart. Here's a hint regarding what's wrong with your chart : "1920x1080 High Quality DirectX 11"

Such incendiary rhetoric! Yeah, I understand that running games at the same level of a console is certainly feasable - well, with most games on the previously mentioned set-up - but that isn't the point I'm making. Building a gaming PC - ESPECIALLY one now, with the intent to play games at higher settings than next-generation consoles, is a bad idea to do now.

That 8800GT and Q6600 were - and arguably still are - technically superior to the hardware in either of the current-gen consoles, but the fact remains that there has been a paradigm shift as far as game development is concerned which totally negates that gap (like it or not.) Thus, making it very risky to invest in expensive, although superior, hardware today, with the hopes of outperforming (you know, enjoying the benefits of a high-end gaming PC?) next-gen consoles.

Besides:

"

We start the performance evaluation with the GeForce 8800/9800 GT—the most popular graphics card according to the Steam Hardware Survey and the GPU that is listed in the minimum system requirements of Battlefield 3. True to DICE's word, the GeForce 8800 GT does indeed play Battlefield 3, though at a humble resolution of 1280 x 1024 and at Low Quality settings. Needless to say, this is not how Battlefield 3 looks in the trailers, but the game does run, as promised.

"

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Likewise. But don't take advice from me.. I've only been doing this for 14 years.

hartsickdiscipl

No, not likewise - you, along with almost everyone who's replied, has missed the idea behind the question posed. Having repaired or built PCs has nothing to do with the underlying concepts of "consolization," a shifting developer paradigm and the strategy PC gamers must adopt.

So you've been building PCs for 14 years... great, I've been a full-time college professor of both information systems and information security for 4. Further, I have many other credentials, law school among others, that neither have anything to do with this topic nor bolster any of my points :/

You're wrong. Having PC Hardware and gaming as major interests for 14 years has given me a broad view of the whole landscape and how it relates to what we're discussing. What I (and many others here) have learned is that it doesn't matter when you build. You can choose to accept that or not. That applies to any era of PC gaming, including the "consolized" present. It's still your choice as to when you want to spend your money. I can go back to 2005-06 when the current generation of consoles was coming out. Nothing has really changed, except for the fact that we PC gamers are really starting to get screwed by paying the same prices for cross-platform titles that consoles gamers do, despite the lack of licensing fees on PC.

Are you sure you want to play the game of "who's opinion is more qualified?" based on professional/personal experience and qualifications? Let's stick to discussing the topic on the merits, rather than grasping at pedantically ill-conceived conclusions.

Moreover, if you think that the only issues effecting PC gamers is the cost of the game, then you're really misguided here. The development paradigm shift - the topic of discussion here - is the single biggest change over the last 10 years. Taking this shift into consideration, the savvy builder would be wise to adjust their strategy.

TL;DR. I caught your mention of waiting for next-gen consoles though. I personally believe that life is too short to wait for the best deals. Go out and enjoy your life while you can. Play computer games when you actually want to instead of waiting and risking not wanting to play them in the future. Waiting only leads to lost nostalgia and a worse gaming experience as a result. There's something to be said about playing a game at the apex of its popularity due to all the fascination around it. That may still be there after a year, but it will be barely noticeable.

As for waiting for consoles, the same applies, but in this case there's even more support for not waiting. Release dates for next-gen consoles (specifically Xbox and Playstation) haven't been released, much less talked about (if even for a brief second) in the media. Your resting your hopes of getting a next-gen console when there hasn't even been much mention of them in development. If anything you'll be waiting more than a year just to grab one. Think of all that gaming you're going to miss out on in a year, just to be a penny pincher. If you honestly can't afford it then so be it. Tons of people are in that predicament. But if you can afford a computer, then get it to have the time of your life for a year before moving on. A year is a long time after all. A YEAR of your life. Think about that. Just think for a minute about how much you can accomplish in one year's time. Think. Waiting that long or even longer to play games, at least to me, is insane. Do what you want when you want to. Don't wait.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Ernesto_basic"]

No, not likewise - you, along with almost everyone who's replied, has missed the idea behind the question posed. Having repaired or built PCs has nothing to do with the underlying concepts of "consolization," a shifting developer paradigm and the strategy PC gamers must adopt.

So you've been building PCs for 14 years... great, I've been a full-time college professor of both information systems and information security for 4. Further, I have many other credentials, law school among others, that neither have anything to do with this topic nor bolster any of my points :/

Ernesto_basic

You're wrong. Having PC Hardware and gaming as major interests for 14 years has given me a broad view of the whole landscape and how it relates to what we're discussing. What I (and many others here) have learned is that it doesn't matter when you build. You can choose to accept that or not. That applies to any era of PC gaming, including the "consolized" present. It's still your choice as to when you want to spend your money. I can go back to 2005-06 when the current generation of consoles was coming out. Nothing has really changed, except for the fact that we PC gamers are really starting to get screwed by paying the same prices for cross-platform titles that consoles gamers do, despite the lack of licensing fees on PC.

Are you sure you want to play the game of "who's opinion is more qualified?" based on professional/personal experience and qualifications? Let's stick to discussing the topic on the merits, rather than grasping at pedantically ill-conceived conclusions.

Moreover, if you think that the only issues effecting PC gamers is the cost of the game, then you're really misguided here. The development paradigm shift - the topic of discussion here - is the single biggest change over the last 10 years. Taking this shift into consideration, the savvy builder would be wise to adjust their strategy.

I don't need to defend my "credentials" in a discussion of this nature. I'm sure enough of my knowledge and experience in this area to know that I speak for the majority on this point. The fact is that game developers were already heavily favoring consoles 5-7 years ago when the current gen of consoles came out. I don't know if you were around for it, but we have been flooded with cross-platform games that had "consolities" and PS2 ports since the early 2000's and even earlier.

Nobody denies that game development has become more console-centric, but it's not as recent a development as you're making it out to be. That also doesn't change the fact that it's still pointless to try to predict when the "right time" to buy is based on console release dates and developer trends, etc.. There are too many variables to play that game. That's why I said that this discussion has been had over and over again since the dawn of PC gaming, and the answer hasn't changed. That's not even getting into the fact that we already have a decent idea of the hardware capabilities of some of the next-gen consoles, and they aren't all that impressive. The focus has been getting away from graphics, and more into physics and interactivity for a few years now. I'm not saying that the visuals won't improve, or that hardware demands won't continue to rise... just that it won't be like the PS2 to PS3 generation leap in that department.

Bottom line, and repeating the outcome of every other thread like this.. You buy and build when you have the money and desire. It's not even a debate anymore. It's more like common sense. I'm not saying that you didn't make some very logical points, just that they are overridden by the truth that keeps proving itself every time someone tries to play that game.

If you feel like you need to build a rig, then it's a good time to build.

If you really don't need a new rig, don't build.

If your waiting for the next big thing, you'll have full pockets and empty hands.

It's always a bad time to upgrade.

I think everyone else here is right you are overthinking, ease up. Heres a fourth wall that will throw a wrench in your noggin, you can buy top of the line parts now, and sell them a year later to upgrade and step up to current times without a complete loss.

Every second you waste is time better off wasted on for gaming :P instead of thinking.

This c*** is going to drive himself crazy with all this thinking, can't even imagine how much grey hairs he has already :lol:

This c*** is going to drive himself crazy with all this thinking, can't even imagine how much grey hairs he has already :lol:

BattleSpectre

TC is simply worried that a $1000 dollar PC right now won't last him as long as say a $400 PS4 next year. Though his PC might be technically more powerful than the PS4 due to optimization the very early PS4 games will look just as good as his next gen console port and very soon the PS4 will pull ahead due to increased optimization while he will have to spend hundereds more dollars to keep up.

It is pointless to argue over theoretical power since the PC will always be more powerful but the PC's power is always used by lazy coders to cover their ever increasing lazyness since PC sales are so low anyway they dont care while they will focus on the RSX and squeeze every but of juice out of it. So while his 8800GT might be more powerful than the RSX the PS3 runs BF3 at around medium/high settings while he would be lucky to run it on low and due to console visual trickery medium on consoles looks much better than PC and low is horrendous on PC.

Due to the fall of true PC gaming, the death of mods, tyrannic drm services such as Steam and Origin and the fall of the last flag bearers of PC gaming such as Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 to console and the end of this geenration I think the TC has valid reasons to think very well if he is willing to spend $1000 dollars to join the relic of what was the glory of PC.

Many will disagree but for me, a gaming pc is meant for games that that are either not available on console or simply better to played (actual gameplay, no mods) on a computer. RPG and RTS games for instance. When I want to play an FPS I will have my fun on XBOX live. Of course this is my preference and those of you who prefer a keyboard and mouse to a controller for moving in an FPS will not find this a relevant point (it is worth noting that most FPS games (not Halo past Combat Evolved I think?) are available on both console and pc while this is not as true for other game types). For me, Computer=Starcraft II, Console= Just about everything else. So I guess my point to the OP is that if you only want to play games that are on console you should probably just stick with consoles. If there are games you really like that are on PC only or you like playing more on PC then you should build a gaming computer. It does not sound like you care about all of the "extra" stuff you can do with a computer when it comes to games (though as others have pointed out there is less of this now) so this is why I think you should make your purchasing decision based on specific games you like to play.

TC is simply worried that a $1000 dollar PC right now won't last him as long as say a $400 PS4 next year. Though his PC might be technically more powerful than the PS4 due to optimization the very early PS4 games will look just as good as his next gen console port and very soon the PS4 will pull ahead due to increased optimization while he will have to spend hundereds more dollars to keep up.

It is pointless to argue over theoretical power since the PC will always be more powerful but the PC's power is always used by lazy coders to cover their ever increasing lazyness since PC sales are so low anyway they dont care while they will focus on the RSX and squeeze every but of juice out of it. So while his 8800GT might be more powerful than the RSX the PS3 runs BF3 at around medium/high settings while he would be lucky to run it on low and due to console visual trickery medium on consoles looks much better than PC and low is horrendous on PC.

Due to the fall of true PC gaming, the death of mods, tyrannic drm services such as Steam and Origin and the fall of the last flag bearers of PC gaming such as Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 to console and the end of this geenration I think the TC has valid reasons to think very well if he is willing to spend $1000 dollars to join the relic of what was the glory of PC.

OldSoldier123

Exactly ;)

TC is simply worried that a $1000 dollar PC right now won't last him as long as say a $400 PS4 next year. Though his PC might be technically more powerful than the PS4 due to optimization the very early PS4 games will look just as good as his next gen console port and very soon the PS4 will pull ahead due to increased optimization while he will have to spend hundereds more dollars to keep up.

It is pointless to argue over theoretical power since the PC will always be more powerful but the PC's power is always used by lazy coders to cover their ever increasing lazyness since PC sales are so low anyway they dont care while they will focus on the RSX and squeeze every but of juice out of it. So while his 8800GT might be more powerful than the RSX the PS3 runs BF3 at around medium/high settings while he would be lucky to run it on low and due to console visual trickery medium on consoles looks much better than PC and low is horrendous on PC.

Due to the fall of true PC gaming, the death of mods, tyrannic drm services such as Steam and Origin and the fall of the last flag bearers of PC gaming such as Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 to console and the end of this geenration I think the TC has valid reasons to think very well if he is willing to spend $1000 dollars to join the relic of what was the glory of PC.

OldSoldier123

BF3 on PS3 is not equivalent to a mix of medium/high settings on PC. It's more like low/medium. Not to mention that it runs at 720p if you're lucky. The "RSX" in the PS3 is basically a neutered Geforce 7800/7900 GPU. You can run BF3 on TC's PC and it can run and look better than the console versions if you adjust the detail settings properly. You just have to know what settings to run it at. If you put the game at 720p (a lower res than 1280x1024 like the results he was talking about earlier), and put most settings on medium, the game will run fine. Put that next to the console versions, and it will look and run just as well, if not better.

[QUOTE="OldSoldier123"]

TC is simply worried that a $1000 dollar PC right now won't last him as long as say a $400 PS4 next year. Though his PC might be technically more powerful than the PS4 due to optimization the very early PS4 games will look just as good as his next gen console port and very soon the PS4 will pull ahead due to increased optimization while he will have to spend hundereds more dollars to keep up.

It is pointless to argue over theoretical power since the PC will always be more powerful but the PC's power is always used by lazy coders to cover their ever increasing lazyness since PC sales are so low anyway they dont care while they will focus on the RSX and squeeze every but of juice out of it. So while his 8800GT might be more powerful than the RSX the PS3 runs BF3 at around medium/high settings while he would be lucky to run it on low and due to console visual trickery medium on consoles looks much better than PC and low is horrendous on PC.

Due to the fall of true PC gaming, the death of mods, tyrannic drm services such as Steam and Origin and the fall of the last flag bearers of PC gaming such as Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 to console and the end of this geenration I think the TC has valid reasons to think very well if he is willing to spend $1000 dollars to join the relic of what was the glory of PC.

hartsickdiscipl

BF3 on PS3 is not equivalent to a mix of medium/high settings on PC. It's more like low/medium. Not to mention that it runs at 720p if you're lucky. The "RSX" in the PS3 is basically a neutered Geforce 7800/7900 GPU. You can run BF3 on TC's PC and it can run and look better than the console versions if you adjust the detail settings properly. You just have to know what settings to run it at. If you put the game at 720p (a lower res than 1280x1024 like the results he was talking about earlier), and put most settings on medium, the game will run fine. Put that next to the console versions, and it will look and run just as well, if not better.

I heavily doubt that. Most console releases look medium/high at 720P comparative to consoles. Just take a look at some youtube videos of 8800GT's running BF3 compared to the PS3 version.

The PS3 version looks much better and runs much better and due to additional visual trickery used on consoles it boosts its level of detail comparative to low end PC's.

Just face it if your on a budget there is a reason consoles are so popular if you want that additional 30 frames and extra resolution and detail your going to have to get a high end PC and the cost of that high end PC is not comparable to the additional level of detail. A $1000 PC costs 4x as much as your average console but the games won't look 4x as good more like 1.5x as good.

It's always a bad time to build, just dive in and build it if you want one. Once you got the stuff together upgrades are less expensive. What you need to buy for upgrades would be the Motherboard, CPU, Ram and maybe a Video Card. And if going AMD, the MB, CPU, and Ram will be about 250 bucks, and figure 150-200 for a new Video Card. Plus the Video Card does not have to be bought at the same time as the MB, CPU and RAM; could space them years apart. Plus, you might not need to buy new RAM. As for the OS, you buy a new one of those when you need/want to. I still use WinXP, for some games with my PC. Bought Win7 Home a few months back for 150 dollars. from here: http://discountmountainsoftware.com/miwi7hoprreb.html

I have a PS3... it does not look as good as my PC. And my video card is a 4870. Some games, work better on a PS3, and others work better on a PC. Like, I can't imagine playing L4D on a PS3. Or play something like Fight Night on a PC.

Many people in this thread are assuming that Sony and MS will release another powerhouse console on the bleeding edge of technology (for consoles) like the 360 and PS3 were back in the day. I am not convinced that they won't just release a slightly updated console to maintain profit margins considering how well the Wii did with absolutely archaic hardware on launch day.General_X

It's this trend that pushed me back to PC gaming. With Move and Kinect and now rumors that MS will have a tablet-stylized controller for its new console, it's become apparent that the console gaming companies are focusing on Nintendo's success with casual gamers.

The PC platform may be the last bastion of hardcore games.

This whole post looks like a giant troll fart in disguise.........The reason for the recent shift towards consoles is simply for the sheer number of players involved. Consoles are genrally cheaper and attract more buyers. I personally believe we will start to see a shift away from console gaming come next generation. Developers these days are becoming too greedy and are most likely going to adopt more restricitons next generation via, DRM, disabling used games and online pass features. Not to mention you still need to pay to use Xbox Live. Why waste money on console when I can get all my content for much cheaper on a PC and I believe many others will follow suit generally.

Another problem is technology is advancing at a faster rate these days. A few years ago when this generation's consoles were released it took at least a couple years for PC's to really start pulling away. Given the time for development, cost, and build, the next consoles will already be behind the curve come release. 6 months to a year later and they may be obsolete. Why wait for a "next generation" console when you can play "next generation" on your PC now? It's honestly not going to be any better. I can play ME3 on my PC with an I7 3.6 Quad core CPU and an Nvidia GTX 570 and that game blows away anything on consoles. Wait and see how much better PC's will look 2 years from now when the new cosoles are released using those same components, maybe even lower specs. Next consoles will probably have to be viable for 10 years due to costs. They will look ancient by the time they're upgraded again.

Final post to my arguement, http://techgage.com/article/nvidia_talks_pc_gaming_trends/. Many of you have probably seen this already but it was written by Nvidia. You could say this is biased because Nvidia is geared towards PC gaming but they also designed the graphics chip on the PS3.